[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <9a8748490803131653n7f1c2bd0m12e30d82bf936d03@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 14 Mar 2008 00:53:17 +0100
From: "Jesper Juhl" <jesper.juhl@...il.com>
To: "Robert P. J. Day" <rpjday@...shcourse.ca>
Cc: "Linux Kernel Mailing List" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: whose job is it to include various header files?
On 13/03/2008, Robert P. J. Day <rpjday@...shcourse.ca> wrote:
>
> more a philosophy question than anything but, while poking around
> the percpu stuff today, i noticed in the header file linux/percpu.h
> the opening snippet:
>
> #include <linux/preempt.h>
> #include <linux/slab.h> /* For kmalloc() */
> #include <linux/smp.h>
> #include <linux/string.h> /* For memset() */
> #include <linux/cpumask.h>
> ...
>
> hmmm, i thought to myself (because that's how i refer to myself), i
> wonder why this header file is including headers for kmalloc() and
> memset() when this header file makes no reference to those routines.
> let's see what happens if i remove them and:
>
> $ make distclean
> $ make defconfig [x86]
> $ make
>
> ... chug chug chug ...
>
> CC arch/x86/kernel/nmi_32.o
> arch/x86/kernel/nmi_32.c: In function 'check_nmi_watchdog':
> arch/x86/kernel/nmi_32.c:81: error: implicit declaration of function 'kmalloc'
> arch/x86/kernel/nmi_32.c:81: error: 'GFP_KERNEL' undeclared (first use in this function)
> arch/x86/kernel/nmi_32.c:81: error: (Each undeclared identifier is reported only once
> arch/x86/kernel/nmi_32.c:81: error: for each function it appears in.)
> arch/x86/kernel/nmi_32.c:81: warning: assignment makes pointer from integer without a cast
> arch/x86/kernel/nmi_32.c:118: error: implicit declaration of function 'kfree'
> make[1]: *** [arch/x86/kernel/nmi_32.o] Error 1
> make: *** [arch/x86/kernel] Error 2
> $
>
> ok, now i know. but that means, of course, that nmi_32.c is
> invoking kmalloc() without ever having included the necessary header
> file for it -- it's just inheriting that from linux/percpu.h.
>
> doesn't that (sort of) violate the kernel coding style? if a file
> somewhere needs the contents of some header file, isn't it that file's
> responsibility to explicitly include it, and not quietly realize it's
> getting it from elsewhere?
>
I agree with you completely. A file should explicitly include headers
for the stuff it uses and not rely on implicit includes done
elsewhere. Cleaning that up is going to touch a lot of files though
for no real short term gain (there is a long term gain of
maintainability though), so it's going to be a loveless job :(
--
Jesper Juhl <jesper.juhl@...il.com>
Don't top-post http://www.catb.org/~esr/jargon/html/T/top-post.html
Plain text mails only, please http://www.expita.com/nomime.html
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists